Almgren et al v. Shultz et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 33 Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendant William Shultz are dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state court. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2016)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JON ALMGREN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7

ORDER DISMISSING
PLAINTIFFS’ STATE
LAW CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT WILLIAM
SHULTZ

v.
WILLIAM SHULTZ, et al.,

8
9

No. C 16-2611 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiffs Jon Almgren and Melissa Almgren move for default

12

judgment against Defendant William Shultz.

13

retain jurisdiction over their state law claims against him.

14

Docket No. 33.

15

22.

16

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

17

state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice to re-filing

18

them in state court.

They ask the Court to

Defendant William Shultz defaulted.

Docket No.

Having considered the papers filed by Plaintiffs, the Court

19

BACKGROUND

20

This case arises from the tragic death of nine-year-old

21

Jordon Almgren on April 26, 2015 at the hands of Defendant William

22

Shultz.

23

case.

The Court has previously summarized the facts of the

Docket No. 19.

24

On May 13, 2016, the Almgrens filed this suit as individuals

25

and as successors-in-interest and personal representatives of the

26

estate of their son, Jordon Almgren, against William and Katherine

27

Shultz, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Health Services, Contra

28

Costa County Office of the Sheriff, and Contra Costa County

1

Sheriff’s Deputy Miguel Aguilera.

2

2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the last four

3

Defendants listed, referred to as County Defendants, with leave to

4

amend within fourteen days, Docket No. 19, and ordered Plaintiffs

5

to request entry of default against William and Katherine Shultz,

6

Docket No. 18.

7

entered a stipulated dismissal of the claims against County

8

Defendants.

9

against individual Defendants William and Katherine Shultz

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Docket No. 1.

On July 18,

On July 27, 2016, Plaintiffs and County Defendants

Docket No. 23.

As a result, only state law claims

remained.
On August 1, 2016, Defendant Katherine Shultz filed her

12

answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.

13

2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to demonstrate the Court’s

14

jurisdiction over their claims against Katherine Shultz.

15

No. 25.

16

against Katherine Shultz without prejudice.

17

Docket No. 24.

On August 2,

Docket

On August 12, 2016, the Court dismissed the claims
Docket No. 27.

On July 28, 2016, the Clerk entered default as to Defendant

18

William Shultz.

19

ordered Plaintiffs to move for default judgment against William

20

Shultz and to demonstrate the Court’s jurisdiction over their

21

claims against him.

Docket No. 22.

Docket No. 28.

22
23

On August 16, 2016, the Court

LEGAL STANDARD
A district court must exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

24

all non-federal claims that are “so related to claims in the

25

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of

26

the same case or controversy under Article III of the United

27

States Constitution.”

28

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when "the district

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

2

A district court may

1

court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original

2

jurisdiction."

3

Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (district

4

court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental

5

jurisdiction is triggered by any one of the conditions in

6

§ 1367(c)).

7

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Associates,

The Court’s “discretion to decline to exercise supplemental

8

jurisdiction over state law claims . . . is informed by the

9

[United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)] values of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

‘economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’”

11

1001.

12

repeatedly held that, “in the usual case in which all federal-law

13

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . .

14

will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the

15

remaining state-law claims.”

16

University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)).

17

in such a case state law claims generally should be dismissed,

18

although dismissal is not required.

19

383 U.S. at 726); Carnegie-Mellon, 48 U.S. at 350.

Acri, 114 F.3d at

Following Supreme Court precedent, the Ninth Circuit has

Id. at 1001 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon
As a result,

Id. at 1000 (citing Gibbs,

20

DISCUSSION

21

Because jurisdiction is a threshold matter, Steel Co. v.

22

Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998), the

23

Court considers first the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over

24

Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

25

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law

26

claims, it does not reach Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.

27
28

Because the Court declines to

Because Plaintiffs’ four federal claims have been dismissed
and Plaintiffs have not alleged any federal claims against the
3

1

sole remaining Defendant, the Court has discretion to decide

2

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

3

remaining state law claims.

4

the Gibbs factors of economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

5

The Court’s discretion is guided by

Plaintiffs urge the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction

6

over their wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional

7

distress claims in order to enter default judgment and hold a

8

hearing on the amount of damages.

9

final proceedings are not complex, and that declining jurisdiction

Plaintiffs argue that these

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

would force Plaintiffs to expend additional resources to sue

11

William Shultz in state court.

12

The Court finds that the Gibbs factors weigh against

13

exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining

14

state law claims.

15

before the Court a relatively short time--approximately four

16

months--and has not required complex motion practice or any

17

discovery.

18

the facts and history of this case would not be great.

19

will not be materially harmed by any delay in their potential

20

relief because Plaintiffs acknowledge that William Schultz is

21

incapable of paying monetary damages at any point in the

22

foreseeable future.

23

The case is not close to trial.

It has been

The burden on a state court to familiarize itself with
Plaintiffs

Pl.’s Mot. for Default Judgment at 8.

Because only state law claims remain, comity strongly favors

24

dismissal.

25

under state law is not necessarily simple, even assuming

26

Plaintiffs’ evidence goes uncontested, and would best be decided

27

by a state court with a “surer-footed reading of applicable law.”

28

Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726.

Furthermore, the determination of Plaintiffs’ damages

4

1

Finally, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly upheld district
courts’ exercise of discretion to decline supplemental

3

jurisdiction over remaining state claims after federal claims had

4

been dismissed.

5

816 F.3d 1255, 1265 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s

6

summary judgment for defendants on federal claim and directing

7

court on remand to “first consider whether to continue to exercise

8

its supplemental jurisdiction” before considering remaining state

9

law claim); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

Cir. 2010) (“‘[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims

11

are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be

12

considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine--judicial

13

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity--will point toward

14

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law

15

claims.’”) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7).

16

See, e.g., Coomes v. Edmonds School Dist. No. 15,

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the balance of factors

17

tips against retaining the state law claims and dismisses these

18

claims without prejudice to re-filing in state court.

19
20

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion is

21

DENIED.

22

Shultz are dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state

23

court.

24

Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendant William

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: October 5, 2016

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
5